Israel's defence and the ethics of occupation

Paul Oestreicher (Israel's policies are feeding the cancer of anti-semitism, February 20) overlooks the facts that the killing at Israel's birth was initiated by Arabs, and there would have been much more if they had won; that Golda Meir's remark denied the existence of a Palestinian nation, not of the people (and there was no such nation before the 1960s); that "zionism" is a term so vague as to be meaningless: let him say which Israeli policies he opposes and this can then be discussed; that the security fence doesn't bring peace, but does save lives; that the occupation would be over if Arafat had opted for negotiation rather than violence - the offer was easily good enough as a basis for negotiation; that Gaza has been evacuated and much of the West Bank has considerable autonomy; that the treaties with Jordan and Egypt have held; that no Israeli wishes to kill all or any Palestinians except in unavoidable self-defence.
Harry Lesser University of Manchester

Paul Oestreicher's revulsion of "one of the world's most dangerous outbreaks of collective hatred" underlines the urgent necessity for a means to reconciliation. Israel's "blackmail" and "collective punishment" - in the words of the new Palestinian premier, Ismail Haniyeh - of the Palestinian people by withdrawing its legally entitled tax revenue is both unjust and immoral and will further inflame invective.

The present impasse requires grand gestures from both sides. Hamas has continued to observe its year-long ceasefire and Israel has curtailed its assassination programme. As Oestreicher points out, a large proportion of Israeli citizens see their state's activities in the occupied territories as counterproductive to peace and security, and hopefully their voices will be heard in the forthcoming Israeli elections. Equally, Hamas should be encouraged to renounce violence against Israeli citizens and to recognise the existence of the state of Israel - but an Israel within its 1967 borders. To expect the newly elected Hamas government to accept the "realities on the ground" of Israel's illegal dividing wall and its proposed plans to annex large swaths of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, would be an acceptance of, and a complicity in, their own continued occupation and humiliation. S Henderson Brighton, E Sussex

Paul Oestreicher is right that "modern Israel was born in terror". But that terror was Arab terror that needed to be responded to. Arab terror in Jerusalem in April 1920; in Jaffa in May 1921; in Jerusalem in November 1921; in Hebron, Safed etc in 1929; throughout the mandate territory from April 1936 to May 1939. And Arab terror in response to the UN partition resolution beginning in December 1947. All this terror was initiated by the Arabs who refused any political resolution, any compromise or any mediation.Yisrael Medad Shiloh, Israel

The general synod of the Church of England has every right to sell shares in a company whose actions it considers unethical. However, Jonathan Sacks in his criticism of this decision (Sacks accuses synod of bulldozer ill-judgment, February 17) has done precisely what anti-Jewish people and groups do: he has merged Israeli government policies and actions with those of Jews in general. There are substantial numbers of Jews both inside and outside Israel who find the actions of the current Israeli government unacceptable and repugnant, and there is no reason why the synod should not also think so. To do so is not to attack all Jews nor Christian-Jewish relations. Sacks and his supporters have done Jews in Britain and possibly the world a great disservice. David Freedman London

Presumably, the chief rabbi, who concerns himself a great deal with ethics and the position of religious organisations, would prefer it if the church continued to invest in a company whose products are used directly in the brutal oppression of people living under a military occupation. Still, at least Jonathan Sacks is speaking only for himself. Nobody in the Jewish community elected him and he doesn't speak for the vast majority of Jews, many of whom will be appalled at his latest failure to take a moral stand over Israel's continuing occupation of Palestinian land and oppression of its people. David Rosenberg London

It was devastating to hear of the synod resolution. One important use of Caterpillar tractors has been to locate tunnels bringing in weaponry for attacks against Israeli civilians. These tunnels emerging into refugee camps and Palestinian homes have caused the destruction of these dwellings by Israel and much suffering to the occupants of these homes. But Israel has a duty to try to protect its citizens from unprovoked attacks. The Palestinian people, even children, have been indoctrinated with the lie that Israel is occupying their land. The truth is that this area is part of God's land given to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an everlasting inheritance. Marjorie Lessey Bridgwater, Somerset

The chief rabbi confuses issues of human rights and corporate responsibility with religion. Caterpillar has been singled out by the UN and human rights groups for its role in the destruction of Palestinian agriculture, homes and even lives. The synod has sent a strong signal that corporate complicity in human rights abuses is unacceptable. Nick Dearden War on Want

What Oestreicher fails to comprehend is the exhaustion caused by the constant need to reassert our legitimacy. This is a feeling shared by Jews and Israelis of all religious and political persuasions. Arthur Oppenheimer Hove, E Sussex